Malthus, T. R. (Thomas Robert), 1766-1834; Malthusianism
First, he says, fertile[521] soils yield a produce that more than feeds
the producer. This may be put more generally than Malthus has put it. If
rent is to be paid, there must be wherewithal to pay it; and there
cannot be so if production does no more than repay cost. There may,
however, be a production beyond mere repayment of cost, not only in
farming but in all trades. The very principle of the division of labour
and the separation of trades implies that devotion to one occupation
makes men so dexterous in production that, besides providing for
themselves, they have an overplus wherewith to supply their other wants
and the wants of others.[522] This overplus, where the facilities for
trading were specially good, might be so much above the overplus of an
ordinary profit that the granter of the facilities, who is usually the
ground landlord, might get the lion’s share of it, and still leave the
user of the facilities as thriving as his neighbours. On the other hand,
if no such overplus can be earned, no such rent can be paid. Rent, in
short, when it is paid by men of business, either in town or in country,
means over-profits, and ground-rents mean advantage of situation.
The second cause of rent, according to Malthus, who is considering, be
it remembered, the cause of the Progress of rents as well as of their
actual volume at any given time,[523] is the peculiarity belonging to
agricultural land, that the demand increases with the supply; in other
cases the demand is external to the supply, but in this case[524] the
supply creates its demand. Where there is food there will be mouths. In
the supply of food no over-production is possible.[525]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account